Forget It Jake, It’s Clintontown

Clinton won’t be indicted for breaking any laws, but Comey’s statement is nonetheless an indictment of her poor judgment, negligence, and recklessness. This should be very damaging for Clinton, and maybe it still could be, but it can hardly come as a surprise to anyone that remembers how the Clintons have operated over the years. The sloppiness, sense of entitlement, and disregard for consequences are all only too familiar. We can expect several more years of this sort of behavior from a future Clinton administration.

Andrew McCarthy is stunned. He says the FBI director has refused to indict her on a premise that is not required for an indictment to be issued. And:

I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

It is somehow comforting to find that one’s pitch-black cynicism is vindicated. I did not believe that official Washington would indict Hillary Clinton, not in a presidential election year, and not when she’s the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House.

The thought of four more years of those people, the Clintons, in the White House, with all their sleaziness, their drama, their sense of entitlement — it’s sick-making. What a country. What a year.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 154 comments

154 Responses to Forget It Jake, It’s Clintontown

“No one cares about this e-mail thing except political wonks and right wing radio talk show hosts.”

That may be true but they should. A candidates’ who attempts to keep official conduct in the private domain (out of reach from public scrutiny) and potentially puts at risk to exposure security sensitive information to domestic and foreign hackers does not speak well of what portends for the future.

“Past is prologue,” and there is a lot of history behind the Clintons to suggest we must prepare for another four years of secrecy, tacky and sleazy political practices.

Not that I am looking forward to a Trump presidency. No. Both candidates, in their own ways, are unfit for higher office, which is why I’m voting Green.

Climate change is a sham. Or, rather, it is happening, but it happened many times even before the appearance of humans, hence all unscience fiction about it is a sham. Here’s a NASA satellite map of air pollution worldwide:

It shows that the world EVERYWHERE outside China, Germany and Southern England is almost completely clean and pure. Outside of those areas there is only a small handful of tiny red spots that are New York, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo and Yokohama metropolitan areas. Hence there are no emissions that would be even REMOTELY close to influencing the climate.

Thus, have fun in your alternate universe. The same where Trump’s several bad statements can be compared to Clinton’s catastrophic actions as one of the country’s highest officials.

“No one cares about this email thing except political wonks and right wing radio talk show hosts. Stop any random person on the street or in your shop and ask them what they think and you’ll get a big Huh? They don’t think anything because they don’t know what it’s all about; they don’t know because they don’t care.”

If this is true all that means is that the average American is an idiot.

This was an example of either informed spectacular recklessness, or an unforgivable ignorance of how modern technology works.

The average American is an idiot… if s/he doesn’t see things the way VikingLS and John see things. (I heard people ask in November 1972 how the American people could be so stupid as to re-elect Richard Nixon… well, they did, so try to figure out why, don’t diss them all as stupid.)

I also find little reason in daily life to believe that Hillary Clinton’s Emails are a major concern to many Americans.

I have had little to no respect for Hillary for a good 20 years or more. I consider this episode par for the course in Clintonian arrogance. But, I don’t see it as an extraordinary departure from the general level of moral probity and thoughtful consideration found in either party or any level of federal and state government. It also doesn’t really affect most people’s livelihood, family, freedom of speech, or much else. Its a bit more relevant than say, Grover Cleveland’s illegitimate child. But it fails to gain traction for more or less the same reasons. Its not what people are really thinking about when they choose who to vote for.

Indeed, if I believed Hillary Clinton were firmly committed to a $15 an hour minimum wage, I would overlook dozens of arrogant communication systems. I don’t, however, believe anything she says is reliable, if the wind blows in another direction tomorrow.

Good point about Rubin and Glass-Steagall… but if it doesn’t resonate with voters, then the question is how to get it across in a way people pay attention to. It is powerless posturing to let out a primal scream of “Shame on them.” (I like Thomas Clarkson in the movie “Amazing Grace,” but he said a lot of similar things, and it contributed to the long delays in ending the slave trade.)